[Zionist Nationalist]

Every time someone says atheism is evil he should be presented with various quotes from the bible

[SSDR]

It would hardly make sense for women to be sex objects if they weren't people.

And people who have come to terms with the fact of evolution (i.e., not Marxists).

Just because someone is a person, doesn't mean they are a "sex object." The viewpoint that a woman is nothing but a "sex object" is very alarming. It sounds very right winged.

[Nonsense]

There are certainly some very dysfunctionalised minds about judging by the comments on sex here.

As I have iterated before on the topic, 'sex' is nature's 'trick-or-treat', it is the evolutionary development evolved as an alternative to cloning & allows perpetual change through natural selection(of partners-if you like).
By having the ability to reproduce by coitus, creatures introduce variants, giving rise to beneficial or detrimental changes which pan out over time.

Through the ability to 'treat' both the male & female in coitus through orgasmic copulation nature has performed a 'trick' of reproduction that's different than it's earlier ancestral cousin of cloning.

By so doing it ensures the survival of the species in a range of environments that cloning could not achieve, that's evolution in action.

Additionally, coitus between male & female ensures that human capital(in our case)is invested in ensuring that any offspring also succeed to live into adulthood.

There is a social bond that we know as the 'family', which is an additional benefit(or responsibility)that cloning may or may not engender at a conscious level.

Were there no 'treat' involved in coitus between male-female, we would simply not survive, by not being able to pass on our genes, because, what would be the 'point'(pun intended) of sex, if there was no 'treat', as neither sex would be interested in coitus, that is the genius of evolution, that it has introduced a reproduction mechanism for creatures equivalent to giving bees the nectar off of the plants that attract the bees in order to propagate the plants.

It stands to reason, that either the male or female within any species, evolves through various ways, to attract the attention of their opposite numbers to improve the chances of creating an opportunity to pass on their genes.

For our species, both women & men engage in that process of fermenting attention from the opposite sex to increase their chances for physical coitus.

Real males need no enhancements to female attractiveness to ferment their interest, it's probably a throwback to when such artificial means of doing so were scarce.

It does have benefits to females, as males treat more attractive females as being potentially more suitable as carriers for their genes & are more likely as not to be protected for that reason.

An attractive female simply looks more 'healthy' ,I'm not sure that women truly know or understand the in's or out' of how men view them, subjectively or objectively, yet alone emotionally.
I think that some women generalise what men's motives are,how they view them as opposed to their view of them as individuals with personality,character, intelligence, as additions to their beauty.

[Hindsite]

There are certainly some very dysfunctionalised minds about judging by the comments on sex here.

As I have iterated before on the topic, 'sex' is nature's 'trick-or-treat', it is the evolutionary development evolved as an alternative to cloning & allows perpetual change through natural selection(of partners-if you like).
By having the ability to reproduce by coitus, creatures intruduce variants, giving rise to beneficial or detrimental changes which pan out over time.

Through the ability to 'treat' both the male & female in coitus through orgasmic copulation nature has performed a 'trick' of reproduction that's different than it's earlier ancestral cousin of cloning.

By so doing it ensures the survival of the species in a range of environments that cloning could not achieve, that's evolution in action.

Additionally, coitus between male & female ensures that human capital(in our case)is invested in ensuring that any offspring also succeed to live into adulthood.

There is a social bond that we know as the 'family', which is an additional benefit(or responsibility)that cloning may or may not engender at a conscious level.

Were there no 'treat' involved in coitus between male-female, we would simply not survive, by not being able to pass on our genes, because, what would be the 'point'(pun intended) of sex, if there was no 'treat', as neither sex would be interested in coitus, that is the genius of evolution, that it has introduced a reproduction mechanism for creatures equivalent to giving bees the nectar off of the plants that attract the bees in order to propagate the plants.

It is not evolution, God designed it that way.
Praise the Lord.

[Godstud]

To put it in a way you might understand. If you believe in God, then God designed Evolution.

Evolution is not ATHEIST!!! It's science, and has nothing to do with religion. Can you get that through your head?

[BigSteve]

Just because someone is a person, doesn't mean they are a "sex object." The viewpoint that a woman is nothing but a "sex object" is very alarming. It sounds very right winged.

And yet there are so many instances where left-wing idiots get hit with sexual harassment charges. Bill Cosby, Al Franken, Harvey Weinstein.

Saying "it sounds very right wing" is pretty silly...

[Nonsense]

It is not evolution, God designed it that way.
Praise the Lord.

There are times when one does wonder , because evolution could never produce an impenetrable mindset.

We can refute religion, but a mindset that accepts & believes the unbelievable is a very different proposition altogether.

[Truth To Power]

Just because someone is a person, doesn't mean they are a "sex object."

True. Because of the asymmetry in human reproductive roles, the males did not evolve to be sex objects. It is a very rare male who can provide consistent sexual gratification to more than a very few females.

The viewpoint that a woman is nothing but a "sex object" is very alarming.

Sure, because the "nothing but" claim is something you made up.

It sounds very right winged.

Facts often do.

[SSDR]

True. Because of the asymmetry in human reproductive roles, the males did not evolve to be sex objects. It is a very rare male who can provide consistent sexual gratification to more than a very few females.

Sure, because the "nothing but" claim is something you made up.

Facts often do.

Some women love to use men as sex objects. Some women like to "milk men."

I am not making up any claims. Your views on women are very alarming. And right wing statements are not facts. They are opinions that lack reality.

[Hindsite]

Some women like to "milk men."

That reminds me of the joy of sucking milk from my wife's full breasts.
HalleluYah

[Godstud]

That reminds me of the joy of sucking milk from my wife's full breasts.

Did you also wear a diaper?

Halleluyah

[SSDR]

:eh: Did you also wear a diaper?

He uses paper from the bible to wipe his ass when he takes a shit lmfaoo.

[Godstud]

oh right... Georgia. Marrying your mother is illegal in most other places.

[Hindsite]

oh right... Georgia. Marrying your mother is illegal in most other places.

Sorry to hear that you missed out on a good thing.

[Godstud]

[Saeko]

" " is right @Godstud

[Godstud]

Well, @Hindsite, thank you for the good chuckle this morning. Have a good day, man!

[anasawad]

I should remain silent now.


EDIT:
On the above discussion, I find it weird why many left-wing activists these days have a problem with sexual objectification.
Sexual objectification is not a crime, nor a bad thing to that matter. In fact, I would say it's an essential part of the human sexual drive that made our species so successful and a natural and integral part of human sexual psyche.

Sexual objectification is not the same as sexual acts. That difference should be made clear more often it seems.

[Truth To Power]

Some women love to use men as sex objects. Some women like to "milk men."

And on your planet, that might be relevant to the fact that here on earth, women evolved to be sex objects but men did not.

I am not making up any claims.

You made up the claim that I said women were nothing but sex objects.

Your views on women are very alarming.

Some people find certain facts alarming, and prefer their delusions. That's their prerogative.

And right wing statements are not facts.

Whether a statement is true or not does not depend on how it relates to human inequality.

They are opinions that lack reality.

The reality is that women evolved to be sex objects for very good biological reasons; but some people find this reality distasteful or even alarming, and consequently refuse to know it.

[Hindsite]

The reality is that women evolved to be sex objects for very good biological reasons; but some people find this reality distasteful or even alarming, and consequently refuse to know it.

Could it be that some women did not evolve?